During nearly two decades, Arpaio has garnered world-wide publicity for creating a tent city in the Arizona desert to house county jail inmates, sending out men and women in chain gangs to pick up trash, and clothing inmates in striped suits and pink underwear.

He even offered to accommodate Paris Hilton in one of Maricopa County's jails when the celebrity socialite was sentenced to prison in Los Angeles last year for driving offences.

His latest crackdown against illegal immigrants began about 18 months ago.

He has nothing against immigrants -- his parents were Italian immigrants ('legal' he adds pointedly) -- or Mexicans, he says.

For Arpaio, illegal immigration is a fairness issue. Why should some people wait years for citizenship through the proper channels while others slip across the border?

"The minute you crossed the border, you violated the law," Arpaio said. "There's no doubt that illegals are involved in drug trafficking and other crimes. Many of them, maybe the majority, come here to work.

"Still, it's illegal to come here. I'm going to continue to enforce the law. I took an oath of office. I'm the bad guy. That's okay. It's alright with me."

On April 9, the New York Times, citing Mayor Jimenez's confrontation with Arpaio, demanded a congressional investigation into the sheriff's anti-brown escapades, and suggested Arpaio himself be subpoenaed to testify before Congress. Normally reticent, fence-sitting pols such as Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox and Governor Janet Napolitano criticized the MCSO's patrols, and the governor stripped the MCSO of $1.6 million in state funds being used for the sweeps. Napolitano maintained the move was merely a budgetary shift, but most have read it as a swipe at the sheriff, including Arpaio himself. (Straight-faced, he denounced Napolitano's move as "dirty politics.")

Logged

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Amnesty International issued a report critical of the treatment of inmates in Maricopa County facilities. Criticism has resulted due to lawsuits filed against the sheriff’s office by family members of inmates who died in jail custody and in high-speed pursuits involving deputies. The lawsuits have cost Maricopa County more than $43 million in settlement claims during Arpaio's tenure.

From 2004 through November 2007, Arpaio was the target of a staggering 2,150 lawsuits in U.S. District Court and hundreds more in Maricopa County courts; 50 times as many lawsuits as the New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston jail systems combined. At least 11 inmate deaths have resulted directly from inhumane conditions in Arpaio's jails.

Arpaio is currently subject to a class-action lawsuit, Hart v. Arpaio, brought by Phoenix attorney Debra Hill and the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of jail inmates. The case addresses pretrial detainees, who are legally innocent until proven guilty. The lawsuit claims that Arpaio is violating the constitutional rights of those detainees. Health and corrections experts are currently examining conditions in Arpaio's jails, in connection with the suit, which is scheduled to go to trial in August, 2008.

By mid-year 2007, more than $50 million in claims had been filed against the sheriffs office and Maricopa County.

Furthermore, in a 1998 Arpaio commissioned study, Arizona State University Criminal Justice professor Marie L. Griffin found that Arpaio's policies did nothing to reduce recidivism in the Maricopa County facilities compared to his predecessor: "there was no significant difference in recidivism observed between those offenders released in 1989-1990 and those released in 1994-1995."

I don't agree with everything Arpaio does, but I'm so far removed from it I really can't make a definitive judgment one way or another (nor can I understand how someone from Ft. Lauderdale could either).

Having spend a number of years working with State and Local law enforcement, I can only draw from my experiences. Some guys like Arpaio are loud and have huge egos, but decent human beings and are just dedicated to their job. Other guys like him are loud and have huge egos, and those egos become downfalls as they cross the line. For example, I used to work with a Sheriff who used Arpaio as a role model - Gerald Hege, Davidson County, NC. He started out alright, but eventually his ego got the better of him. He started making up stories about how the mafia was out to get him, had a custom car built (and ran it down the highway, lights off and not in pursuit, at 140 mph) and started his own self-serving TV program. He ended up pleading to a number of charges (embezzlement and obstruction of justice) and getting booted out of office - a victim of his own ego. I have no idea which side of that line Arpaio is on, but if he hasn't crossed it yet, he could be vulnerable to doing so. Given the huge numbers of lawsuits, the deaths in his jails (edit: nice timing, Brendan!) and some of the other issues he's had, I'm not sure he's the kind of Sheriff that should be idolized or even praised.

Arpaio has done alot of things which I think should be copied by other law enforcement organizations. He also often goes too far with some of those same policies. The intesting thing is his constituants seem to love him. He has been re-elected by large margins 3 times despite his promise not to run for more than one term and one failed recall petition.

You are 100% correct that his being tough on illegal immigration issues is a large part of why he is disliked by so many.

And this is based upon what? Did you read the articles I posted? Did you read the Wiki article posted? There is a lot more going on here than complaining that he is too tough on illegal immigration. As a side note, please explain to me why ANYONE in this country should be expected to "show their papers" because they happen to be walking down the street. When did that become OK in this country? Being brown should not be reasonable cause for harassment.

Logged

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Arpaio has done alot of things which I think should be copied by other law enforcement organizations. He also often goes too far with some of those same policies. The intesting thing is his constituants seem to love him. He has been re-elected by large margins 3 times despite his promise not to run for more than one term and one failed recall petition.

His constituents must not care much about their budget - $43 million in judgments paid out is insane.

I don't agree with everything Arpaio does, but I'm so far removed from it I really can't make a definitive judgment one way or another (nor can I understand how someone from Ft. Lauderdale could either).

You really need to live in the heart of an "immigration" city to understand just how BAD illegal immigration has become. Broward County's (Fort Lauderdale area) population is nearly 1/3 foreign-born. Miami, which is right next door, is the only county in the United States where over 50% of the population weren't born here. There are many areas down here where english isn't the norm. Just going through a mcdonald's drive-thru can be a hassle these days, unless you speak Spanish or Creole. Here at the main county jail, there's a good number of inmates who speak no english at all. So when I see Sheriff Arpaio cracking down on illegal immigration and building "tent cities" (remember this is YOUR tax dollars at work) I wish we had a guy like him for our Sheriff. It's not unusual for a Sheriff to wear a suit either, btw.

I stopped looking at wikipedia because anyone can edit it. You get someone from "Immigrants without Borders" or the racist "La Raza" who can easily edit anything they want on there. It's hard to look at wikipedia as a source for anything 100% factual.

For those of you open border activists "let everyone in" people, all I can say is come down to Miami sometime. Visit Little Havana where english is a foreign language. Take a tour through downtown Miami where half the bill boards aren't even in english, where traffic is tremendously congested and it takes 2 hours just to commute, where crime never seems to end, and if you still like what you see, then I guess you really mean it when you say we shouldn't secure our borders.

I've grown up here in South Florida and watch as it gets worse and worse and as more and more Americans take flight to the North to escape from it all. Sooner or later, I'll be joining them. And yes, I'll bring the flag!

Logged

"A gladiator does not fear death. He embraces it. Caresses it. Fucks it. Every time he enters the arena, he slides his cock into the mouth of the beast."

I don't agree with everything Arpaio does, but I'm so far removed from it I really can't make a definitive judgment one way or another (nor can I understand how someone from Ft. Lauderdale could either).

You really need to live in the heart of an "immigration" city to understand just how BAD illegal immigration has become. Broward County's (Fort Lauderdale area) population is nearly 1/3 foreign-born. Miami, which is right next door, is the only county in the United States where over 50% of the population weren't born here. There are many areas down here where english isn't the norm. Just going through a mcdonald's drive-thru can be a hassle these days, unless you speak Spanish or Creole. Here at the main county jail, there's a good number of inmates who speak no english at all. So when I see Sheriff Arpaio cracking down on illegal immigration and building "tent cities" (remember this is YOUR tax dollars at work) I wish we had a guy like him for our Sheriff. It's not unusual for a Sheriff to wear a suit either, btw.

I stopped looking at wikipedia because anyone can edit it. You get someone from "Immigrants without Borders" or the racist "La Raza" who can easily edit anything they want on there. It's hard to look at wikipedia as a source for anything 100% factual.

For those of you open border activists "let everyone in" people, all I can say is come down to Miami sometime. Visit Little Havana where english is a foreign language. Take a tour through downtown Miami where half the bill boards aren't even in english, where traffic is tremendously congested and it takes 2 hours just to commute, where crime never seems to end, and if you still like what you see, then I guess you really mean it when you say we shouldn't secure our borders.

I've grown up here in South Florida and watch as it gets worse and worse and as more and more Americans take flight to the North to escape from it all. Sooner or later, I'll be joining them. And yes, I'll bring the flag!

To be fair, I do live in an area with a very large illegal immigrant influx. It's not a border town, but we have more than our fair share. So I'm aware of some of the problems. But reading your post above, it's interesting what you chose to say. You talk about foreign-born, but aren't many of those immigrants legals from Cuba? You seem to complain about Spanish-speaking folks, but I'm not sure that complaint is valid because we don't have an official national language. I'm not sure where you were going with that. Crime, poverty and overpopulation are major concerns.

Really though, the question isn't Arpaio's motives, it's his methods. To contrast, James Pendergraph was our Sheriff for many years and took on illegal immigration head-on, to the point that he was tapped to be the first ever Executive Director of the ICE (US Immigration and Customs Enforcement) Office of State and Local Coordination. So while he went after illegal immigrants, he did so in a way that didn't cause the lawsuits, the community hostility and the headlines the way Arpaio does.

I'm definitely not a "let everyone in" type. I'm not worried about security, but economic stability and jobs for those who are already here. Let's face facts - some types of businesses want a cheap, under-the-table labor pool available so they can artificially keep they costs down. The only real way to battle illegal immigration is to take away the incentive to come - and that incentive is a paycheck. The battle can't really be won at the borders. We tried the same thing with drug enforcement and lost badly. The battle must be fought at the employment level. Right now, employers don't have to do squat to check on the legal status of employees. We've got to put some responsibility with employers - given them the tools to find out the true immigration status and have big fines (including closing the business) for those who are hiring illegals under the table.

It's an area that politicians - especially Republicans - have been loathe to address, but it needs to be done. That, combined with active border enforcement (though I hate the idea of the border wall - there are better ways), active deportations from jailed illegals (287c), reforming the immigration process to make it faster and making the hiring of illegals socially unacceptable (much like smoking has been made socially unacceptable), we might have a shot at getting things under control.

The battle can't really be won at the borders. We tried the same thing with drug enforcement and lost badly.

Continue to lose badly. There's never been a failed government program that more money couldn't fix.

Quote from: Blackadar on June 22, 2008, 01:53:10 PM

The battle must be fought at the employment level. Right now, employers don't have to do squat to check on the legal status of employees. We've got to put some responsibility with employers - given them the tools to find out the true immigration status and have big fines (including closing the business) for those who are hiring illegals under the table.

A mandatory employee database system has been a staple of legislative wish lists for years, and most of the bills under consideration would scale up a voluntary test program known as Basic Pilot. In August 2005 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reviewed that program and found it to be staggering under the weight of 3,600 employers. Mandatory usage would bring that number to 8.4 million.

How does the government that brought you the prescription drug benefit debacle plan to manage an electronic system involving every employed person in these United States? The GAO needs a color-coded map to explain, but here’s the basic summary: Employers send data for every new hire to DHS, which then sends information to SSA, which then sends information back to DHS, which sends information back to the employer, who can either contest any rejected applicants and begin the process anew, risk fines for not complying, or accept the findings. The burden of contesting mistakes and keeping records lies with employers. The price tag, says the GAO, will be about $11.7 billion annually, “with employers bearing much of the cost.”

One of the ironies is that the more difficult we make it for illegal immigrants to enter the country and work the more likely they will stay in the country once they get here.

Quote

Many experts believe the current pattern of illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America was a consequence of the 1986 law’s border tightening, followed by a tougher crackdown in 1996 that built fences in San Diego and El Paso. “The perverse effect has been to dramatically lower return migration out of the country,” says Douglas S. Massey, a Princeton sociologist and co-director of the Mexican Migration Project, a longitudinal survey of more than 18,000 migrants, the largest of its kind. “So we’ve transformed what was before 1986 a circular flow of workers into an increasingly settled population of families. We have actually accelerated the rate of undocumented population growth in the United States and shifted it from a less costly population of male workers into a much more costly population of families.”

The problem, Massey says, is that by making border crossing “very risky and unpleasant and increasingly expensive, you prolong the length of the trips, you reduce the probability of return migration, and you make it more likely that migrants…just hunker down and stay.” The rate of migration from Mexico has actually stayed constant for the last two decades, Massey found. But the rate of return has fallen by half, from 50 percent to 25 percent.

Logged

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.